[lbo-talk] Activistism & the Democratic Party (Kerry: Americ

uvj at vsnl.com uvj at vsnl.com
Sun Feb 8 17:54:17 PST 2004


Michael Pollak wrote:


> On Sun 8 Feb, Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
>
> > Why the US doesn't have a strong Left or social-democratic tradition?
>
> Ulhas, does this mean you didn't like the answer I gave you back in
> November? Or was it unclear?

I don't seem to have received your answer. Did you really send it? :)

Sombart's
>famous line was
> that socialism in the United Stated came to grief "on roast beef and apple
> pie" -- i.e., that American workers were paid a lot better than European
> ones, so had less impetus.

I know two traditional answers: a) Open frontier and the ideology built around it. But that was long ago. As far as I know, open frontier ended in 1890s. My question was about the recent period., b) Super profits from imperialist exploitation.

As for the argument that "American workers were paid a lot better than European ones", one could say the same for Sweden. High wages didn't prevent a strong social democratic politics. (if Lenin is to be believed, labour aristocracy is precisely the basis for social democracy !)


> In addition, everyone also cites race and ethnicity. Under that we
> include the two great political compromises over blacks that marked both
> the constitution and post-reconstruction [Footnote 1], and the ethnic
> divisions that marked an immigrant nation.

My question is about the recent period. Do race and ethnicity remain important tools of bourgeois hegemony even today?

Ulhas



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list